universal declaration of human rights after world war ii. thanks in part to alan nervous about who helped draft the u.n. declaration after her husband's death. today, more than 70 countries recognize the right to hope for health care in the constitution. virtually every industrialized nation has taken steps to implement these rights by establishing some type of universal health coverage for their citizens. ..

they volunteer firefighter played a part in the capture of a serial arsonist and san francisco and became friends with author mark twain over drinks and cards and his childhood stories became immortalized in mr. twins books. it all happens tonight on c-span2 book tv. >> so i was thinking about the word to describe your book.

i finished reading it. and the only word that came to my mind, and i have to confess, i never used this word, as i was a little bit uncertain, magisterial. the scope, dips, authority of the book was just really pretty staggering in terms of what your government. a lot of wonderful topics that people like me resonate to. net 1951, questions about derivatives, all sorts of questions and issues that about class stiegel. pretty interesting in terms of the depth and the capability of thinking about those issues. it turns out there should be careful using the word magisterial because i had to look it up. it means both authoritative and pedantic, don't mean it in that sense. >> i would like to start. often multinational corporations populated by the states and all

depends on many states to see it , see to it that these things done. the american states have played an exceptional role in the creation of elite global capitalism and coordinating its management as well as restructuring other states to these ends. so i think it gives me a little frantic think a little bit of a what you've done your, and i just want to ask you a little bit about what you mean by globalization and why free r freer trade is essential to its achievement and maybe even what is. free enterprise. >> well, and the sense that the book is a long historical analysis trying to us pierce some myths about globalization, people have tended -- treated on the left and right as a matter of markets bypassing states, as state deregulation. and we try to show in the buck that apart from that being the

case, the authors of globalization, it's not multinational corporations that sign free trade agreements. states. and i guess what we are trying to get at in this new liberal era which sees states as opposed to markets which operates on ronald reagan's phrase governments of the problem, not the solution, we are trying to show the extent to which states, in fact, are primarily oriented to facilitating the expansion of deepening of markets, of capitalist social relations. but then there are states and states. in the canadian state. and the american state, to a certain extent, got burdened with the responsibility of insuring that as many states in the world were open to the free movement of capital, open to free trade.

and in 1939 at the time that that was trying to create the conditions that would allow for the united states to go into world war ii, when to speak with the union, and he said, look, we have realizes that if you're a does not sustain free enterprise, the united states cannot gain free enterprise itself. so if you're looking for a motive for this, that is really what it comes back to. >> is there something distinctive about the american state the positions it to do this? of the states occurred in the wind. >> you really have to understand this historically because if you ask the question of globalization being inevitable and you looked at the first half of 20th-century, it looked like it was impossible. you have empires that are fragmenting globalization. have two world wars. yet the oppression.

in the question by the second world war is, is globalization at all possible? can you have a global capitol system? and it was only made possible because the american state had a specific capacity to take that on some specific capacities and the interest because you have to remember that after the first world war the u.s. was already a dominant economic power in the world by far. industrial power. already was the world's creditor, but did not take on responsibility for the making of a global capital. and part of what we're looking at historical the is how it came to see the interest of american capital as intent with the interest of open, global, well, fraud capitol. how did it develop the confidence in the capacities through the depression and through the second world war to take on that project, the making of a global capitalism and then even as it helps europe and japan revive, the question is, how does is keep reducing?

because now you're creating your own competitors. >> at one point in your book to speak but the american empire, actually dramatic appoints. tucker added as imperialism by invitation. you want to talk to the lead of such a mean by that. >> it's actually a phrase that a sweet story and used for 1945. but it is largely not -- it's a matter of saying that the pentagon in the cna have, in fact, not been essential to the role the american state has played in the world as the treasury and the federal reserve have been. and that term empire which was coined for the way in which decapolis class of europe after 1945 facing strongly and much more concerning labour movements , the socialist threat that they posed, and they were concerned about a soviet invasion.

turn to the american state to look to the american state to reconstruct a capitalistic. and in that sense it was empire building. when multinational corporations, the conditions by the late 1950's were found conducive to the flow in europe, that was very much empire. and the conditions that had been established toward the productivity councils that were set up to the 1950's to learn from the way in which american workers had struck a deal with the famous trio detroit with the auto companies whereby they would contribute to productivity by not interfering in the managerial prerogatives of the workplace, provided they got great returns come equal to the compensation, equal to that increase in productivity, and that was very much and still in the european labor movement, and

that too was empire building. the phrase we ourselves coined we are rather proud of, europe went through a process of kayten position, tweeting captures a very well. >> and what it gets that is that this is a really different kind of an empire. this is not an empire that spreads for military intervention. taking over territories even though obviously the military and the cia and pentagon could play a role. what happens on a daily basis from this kind of an empire is that and actually does. states remain sovereign. and so this raises the question, the development of a phrase of the international edition of other states. how did other states count to take responsibility for global capitalism with in their own territory. on the one hand, through

sovereign states rather than taking them over, and on the other hand most of the way this operates is through what looks like it's a voluntary because its markets and institutions, free trade. everyone signs on. so it's a very different kind of empire. >> i'm wondering if we can go back to still little bit and think all little bed. you made some distinctions between industrial of capital and finance capital. i would think -- like to think about how that works nationally and internationally and think about how coherent this is and how to influence the state. >> radical political economist have made a lot of this distinction between industrial and financial. and the conflict between them. we don't think that they prove to be nearly as significant or important either in the united

states or elsewhere as radical scholars have claimed. we see much more confluence of interest, especially in the current era and the lead of finance. very much central to the theme of the buck. picked it up. one should not look upon the american role has a externally positioned. it is as much a process of inside polling the outside as the outside pushing into the inside. we also don't argue against much of the radical left as well that the states are directed by capitalists who no their interest income outside of the state through some common

agreement and then bring out the prime minister or the president and tell them. in our view it's often state personnel who, if anything, are framing for capital. based on particular sectional interests. and it is their responsibility of state officials which if he had gone to work for the treasury you would be doing. it is a matter of figuring out in what way they read facilitate class relations because the state itself is dependent on that. is dependent on successful capital. revenues, legitimacy in terms of the personnel appointment. so the view of the state is one that is very much composed of --

its one and which the state is as misleading as it is being directed. >> and in terms of this question of sports and different interests between finance and industry, one of our arguments, you make it quite strongly that the nature of how capitalism is changed and the nature of the making of the global capitalism is really meant to finance and industry and become integrated, not unified in single institutions, but mutually interdependent in a way that is very strong. for example, when at the end of the 70's there is the question of interest rates were raised, finances liberalized. the auto industry was really devastated. and we an interview with the president of general motors about a decade ago. general motors globally and we ask them, why did you react? why did you except that given

what was doing to you? why were you challenging? and he said, because what they were doing, what finance was doing was absolutely necessary. we had to accept the discipline because it was necessary to break a working-class. cats basically what he said. wrong to control. and you see this right now. you would think that given the kind of deep, deep recession were going through and what it's doing to industries, not just on know, that there would be this major conflict between finance and industry demand we don't see it. we don't see it because i mutually interdependent they are . industry needs finance for venture capital, restructuring and mergers. above all it needs it in a world of global capitalism have to deal with wrists, exchange rates, and the only way to deal with that, and you don't have fixed exchange rates are planning is to do with the through financial markets. completely dependent on very deep financial markets so that

they can cover their risks and feel more confident in terms of building a global community. >> what is interesting about this is that on like the kinds of theories of finance capital that were being developed at the beginning of the 20th-century which saw industry and finance merging, finance taking over industry, which was what pretty well happened in germany. this was never the case. the united states had a very, very broad financial ostentation . the decentered financial system and one in which financial markets therefore broaden the but not linked directly to particular industries. in their function became that of developing financial instruments which will allow finance to go into the market as individual firms and issue commercial paper

to raise their money rather than getting it to wrigley from lynx to particular financiers. that led eventually to the world emulating the rest of the markets. the german banks which were so closely integrated into their industry. deutsche bank is not in distinguishable from goldman. and it explicitly said is a began to shift toward becoming an investment bank along the lines of wall street's, we would be engaging conflict of interest if we are writing ipos for firms that now we are deeply integrated with. they end up owning almost all the mortgages in black cleveland at the time of the 2000 crash. deutsche bank as much as any american bank. so it's very important, i think, to see the way in which finance plays its role. but then after the crash, and as part of dodd-frank it was being argued that we needed to have

derivatives regulated and over the derivatives sold so that they could open the exchange. the first people to object to that or american industrial firms like caterpillar because they find the currency derivatives market absolutely essential if they're going to be able to have these global networks of outsourcing. and they have to sign contracts with chinese firms are german firms in which the exchange rate we will change and six months. and they are purchasing those derivatives. people making those contracts. sir you can see the functionality. is not to say there is a speculation and all those markets, but there are also a function of. not to say that there is an enormous instability in the markets, but now industry is instability as well. >> so one point is that you can't just understand finance in

terms of credit. you have to look at the kind of service and the size and ability of the dimension of this is that consumers are lumped into in the way that we have to talk about. that when you look at the debt in the u.s. economy by the mid-90s there was more consumer debt and industrial that, so your integrating the working class. and you raise the question of international. a lot of the companies, financial companies that are investing in u.s. mortgages are coming from abroad. so it's international companies looking to u.s. markets because they are deep, safe in terms of protecting property. one thing i want to emphasize about volatility. sometimes when you say there's a chance, well, everything is relative irrational. i'm not talking about speculation and a fraud and the craziness. but of course there is all the craziness. of course there is all the speculation, but the problem is

that it's all necessary, it's off and necessary part of global capitalism. having this kind of crazy financial system is actually an essential part of capitalism. >> let me turn that question. want to come back to it even further later on. but where you're going with this notion and the disciplining aspects of it with regard to the working class and also there's a point in the textbook, in your book where you talk a little bit about -- >> is not a textbook. >> far from a textbook. where you talk a little bit about the way in which the working class, involving capital through their own pensions. it think about the pensions. think of the workers themselves as being close eye capitalist for having a creditor in chester sure we think about them being coopted? and then you have on the one hand this kind of force of

whiplash and discipline in through financial markets and global competition. how do you want to think about that? >> i mean, one of the things that happens in coming out of the crisis, the first thing that happens is the solution of the crisis of the 70's was used as a problem of workers need to be strong economically because workers to in the 60's, relatively full employment, it affected profit. and as corporations try to maintain there profits and raise their prices effective and that had a negative impact on stability of the dollar. so breaking the working class was fundamental coming of the 70's. and one of the elements of that, the state, the key thing was higher unemployment. just higher unemployment. but a key part of it was what you raised about enforcing

competition. the mobility of capital, disciplining workers they have no choice but to try to be competitive. one of the elements, what happens to the 80's and 90's is the workers are also integrated into the system in a particular way. they try to solve the problems individually, and some of those are three working longer hours rather than just fighting for more. some of that is going into debt. trying to survive. so they're trying to solve the problem. and they do it, as you said, to the stock market doing better. they do look to their homes not being homes, but investments. and all of those things tend to to make people approach what our social problems as individuals. and in that sense of we force neoliberalism and weaken their own collective capacity for struggle. it weakens the, you know, the collective sensibility. and in not fighting in the

street and a picket lines, is hoping for a tax cut so you can get a wage increase. so finances absolutely fundamental. exactly as you said, to discipline people and the competition which leaves that -- means that they tend to identify there interests of the corporation in order to be competitive and not with other workers. in fact, they look to saving their job in helping somebody else. >> there is a broader and logger aspect of this as well. the long run is that and a sense we need to say that the great organization that emerged through the late 19th century, the first half of the 20th, the trade unions, socialist parties, that turned out to be successful primarily in the sense of allowing the members to become individual customers. and for a time course successfully so.

and part of that individual consensus that was one, even though welfare was oriented. it will to be consumers. it was explained. kings and economics. and the labor movement facilitated that. it could not happen without it. in part of that was, okay, instead of a wage increase we will win the pension benefit or we will win a private health care plan. and in that way in sure that we have a privatized welfare state. and then it's interested. has the social movement emerged, one of the great victors of the women's movement, to give women credit cards. the scandal, the women were unable to get them until the 70's for the most part.

one of the great victories as it turns out of the civil rights movements and its impact on the democratic party a fiscal crisis with the state in the 1970's, a tax revolt, inflation, except for a. of finance and discipline. so you can have an expansion of state programs and more. the balance of forces. a great victory in the 1970's is to stop the banks redlining in terms of loans. community reinvestment act. a major reform. no question. you try to solve the terrible urban plight of the american city by giving the banks to lend and that integrate them into the financial system. very small at the stage. the kennedy reinvestment act is fairly kosher and terms of the way in which it's making those loans. by the 1990's, there is an

explosion of mortgage debt and to black communities, enormous pride that the world is trying to buy secondary mortgages. the treasury proudly says so. and then every shares turned to business. the congressional inquiry and the crisis shows that 10,000 people in florida who were selling mortgages and florida have the conviction. for thousands of those. now, there were cards in the wheel compared to the giant financial institutions or running them. but it was that integration into the financial system which is part of the question you asked about unions. but it is only unions. in a sense, you know, we need to understand a very volatile time. >> we might want to open up to

the audience. >> hi. i am with the union. talk about a systematic change. that they do. [inaudible] how would that happen politically? they don't call the president.

what is the mechanism exactly four and pressing? interested in your answer. is there a core lending mechanism? complete unstable. destabilizing. >> should we take a few questions? >> go ahead. >> i just want to clarify. when we talk about other things are stabilizing or not stabilizing or whether there is hauling out or not, we really do have to distinguish between who it's for. for workers call when you look good manufacturing, some manufacturing productivity is higher than it was in the 50's and 60's. profits are up to much

manufacturing is going faster than gdp. quite high compared to most countries. in terms of your question about how this happens politically, you know, two things are important. one is to recognize that it does not happen in any immediate direct way. when you look at the 70's, what you find is that worker militancy becomes a problem, and they're not sure how to deal with it. .. not sure if they can deal with the politically, and it took them all through the 70's developer response. what you find is to for responses. nixon because more protectionist , raises tariffs for a while. carter tries stimulating the economy. all kinds of things. the blood talk about industrial strategies. all kinds of things happen, but they don't resolve the problem. they don't resolve the problem because if i -- the question of

empire is directly into what is happening inside. not just a question of what is happening outside. the crucial thing about what is happening inside is the head to break labor to restore profits, american capital could become strong again. structured industries. and you had to develop the confidence in financial markets and the united states and abroad that the dollar would be stable and inflation would be broken. and i emphasize and said the united states as well because wall street was taking money outside the united states. it's a long process convoluted times of developing and moving toward what kind of a policy might work. and what you have to remember is that it's carter who -- its carter out of not wanting to do it and eventually coming to the conclusion that given the capitalist constraints and the

american states role in the world, this was what had happened. and then write incomplete. >> i think it's important to supplement that. only use the word burden, the burden of acting for global capital this is racism. you have this is a possibility. so it's appropriate to say as we go through. we are watching, those of us to our american, 1960 election, nixon kennedy. there was the first sign of the dollar crisis. kennedy has a pledge that he would not allow the dollar to exceed value during the course of that campaign. you went through the 60's with this dollar crisis. there is now a glut of dollars with the recovery of japan and germany, all these exports. it didn't know what to do.

there was pressure, as there is now coming from germany for austerity and other countries in europe. there was pressure for austerity on the united states in order to stabilize the value of the dollar, especially given its rolls. this was crucial. and the americans did not know quite what to do. then made an attempt in 1979. first in 1970. an enormous strike with in 1970, and those high interest rates caused wall street crisis, the commercial paper prices, penn central and other. goldman got into trouble than for selling bonds for full value. and so they pulled back. the policies, ranging price controls. and it wasn't until finally and again under pressure from the germans in particular, volker understood that one had to break

american labor in order to stabilize. we interviewed him. and he said, very interestingly, the more important than what i do in raising interest rates to 18% to drive up unemployment high was in. [inaudible] more important and that was the air traffic controllers' strike. nixon's breaking of the union. it was very interesting that he was said that. a very explicit. question i raise another dimension of the politics that i think, where we're going. and that has to do with how labor was responding to all of this. and to understand that you have to go back to 1945. and labor was very strong coming of the war. and the question was, where with lipper go? with labor move toward challenging capitalism jack

would it talk about democratizing the economy, talk about controlling finance, controlling the banks, talk about having some control over where investment goes? what it only try to operate within the system tonight and labor militancy was channeled into only operating within the system was a real insight into saying, we want to the individual consumers, have homes. as far as work is concerned, we're not asking for control. we just won a job. and what that man was among the left in the labor movement, with ideas in the labor movement were defeated. because capitalism could prove that in the 50's and 60's it could actually deliver on a lot of things for workers. workers began to believe that they could make these games consistently, maybe slowly, but consistently. what happened in the crisis of the 70's was that economic militancy came up against the limits of the system. and if workers in war and some

cases tried in some countries to raise broader questions about, well, we have to go further but is otherwise to justify to smashes, but they did have the capacity to do that, partly because of the defeat of the left. so what you ended up with was economic militancy corroding overtime. it was just exhausted. inflation would continue and people would say, well, yes, we need to do something about this. we do have to become competitive so created a climate in which later -- labor could be defeated that's important because one of the difficult lessons of this whole time for labor is that the labor movement was structured iran representing a specific group of order -- workers. these are members. in the 50's and 60's that spread to others. that doesn't generally work anymore. it works for some groups, but even those see the world crashing down around them. and so the question is, can we develop a different kind of

challenge? is it possible to think of he is developing a different kind of organization? >> response to a last question. >> we will roll this : ploy? the same question. that militancy. the part of the world. the deflation of the early 30's. >> those are really crucial questions.

what goldman did, well, if you pledge to give us your airport fees, 20,060, we will float some bonds for you on the basis of the steady income in the fees to collect from having an airport. so are floating these financial instruments on the basis of the promise that happens when you produce a certain amount of revenue on those bonds which would go to pay off the bondholders. we were just down in los angeles the referendum. november 6, which is a the raising funds to extend rapid transit in los angeles. and that portion of the increased sales tax that that is

about will be placed to the issuance of municipal bonds can the next 80 years in order to deal to raise bonds. so this is not only goldman. this is a common practice in the financial sector, and it is one in a way that we need to understand states responding because of their difficulty in going at the bond market. so the main reason the municipalities and american states are smashing public-sector unions for cutting back on their wages, cutting down the public services, laying them off so rashly in the middle of high unemployment is their difficulties and the bond market, the municipal bond market. and unless they're is a way of relieving the pressure, as is also the case in europe right now, and it has been, and this is a central theme of hours, american treasury in american federal reserve which is the

european central bank, the german central bank, you have to stop doing this. you need to do at least with the federal reserve does, the growing liquidity into the system every time is a crisis. and when the quantitative easing three was introduced, i'm sure that was looked at as proof of it in montana and august when the central bankers meet together every year. it was partly in order to ensure that new york banks would be continually lending money to european banks. the wall street bank would be given over dollars to the europeans. and that's one of the reasons they're putting this new drop of liquidity into the european banking system. so the responsibility, again, american state institutions with the management of global capital

has been much more profound than other states of done. nothing new. goes all the way back. where again it was the treasury kicking and screaming the of what actually became the basil accord to provide some stability to the national market. on your other question, on the right, i think that's a very, very -- what is significant about this is that on like the crisis of the 1930's, it has not led to a breakdown in the commitment for states for globalization. it has not led to a venture capitalist. quite remarkable. there has not been tariff increases. a have not been capital control. and that reflects the degree of integration on the ground and global capitalism and affects

territorial expansion and a high degree of closure in the old imperial symbol. so what these type of political movements. the question is, will there be capitalism? and a strength to support them as had been the case of the 1930's? and there is not enough evidence for that yet to be concerned about it. well, yes. in individual countries it may. greece, you see the rise. but you don't see it and those

corestates of global capitalism yet. and it's hard to see how those versions would offer that. it's not impossible given this crisis becoming deeper and deeper, but it's hard to say after that. >> hi. i have a question about the visibility of capitalism. here in the united states, individual freedom and restraint. for a long time we just like to talk about the market and a propensity of individuals to exchange. in the fifties it was called a free enterprise system. it's almost as a people who were part of the capitalist, "one

mysterious death this recent crisis has suddenly made it difficult in the way it has not done quite enough of. so many people in america where they talk about how they kind of crony capitalism took over the natural capitalism. just let it loose again. everybody gets a fair shake. everything will work all right. being able to see something, a system about using gives. reproduce itself. [inaudible]

[inaudible] that rather than the market. >> a very appropriate question on halloween. you put that very well. it out. >> it's a great question. i think some of the problems on the left of that we look forward to crises as if that's what delegitimize the system. all that happens in a crisis is that people want to fix it. it suddenly looks like bush looks good now. he's stable. let's compare to the early days of bush. in the same thing with this question. it's as if america is in decline. let's make it number one again. that was very important in the auto industry in the late 70's

when volcker was smashing the working class. the state was doing this. a lot of workers were thinking in terms of how we make american number one again. i think one of the issues this people have to come to see that capitalism is a lousy system, even when it's working well. when it's working badly it's exactly what you said, you want to fix it. the main thing i care about, my experience with talking to working people is you may not name a capitalism, but they don't think the world is very good. they don't think that things are very fair or equal, and democracy is actually quite an. did not have much input into happens. the problem isn't that -- the problem is that they feel that there is nothing they can do about it. the question of fatalism immediately gets to the question of organization. if there isn't a way that they concede that they -- you know, structures that they can work through to change things, even if it takes some time, you don't

see that often. yanase structures through which they can work through and build capacities' through and see that as a longer term when actually changing. they tend to not too much. and that think it's a venture but education. if greece serious about doing education will have to happen or as enough effort that there would have been dozens of discussions going on in the meetings afterwards . i don't think there is any magical language or words that we can use, although we have to struggle with what it is. we do have to think about how we organize ourselves to take on this incredibly powerful system that really does work just by hammer you over the head, through markets, and it works through liberal democracy.

empire doesn't just work. it's not just when america goes into iraq. >> liberal democracy. [inaudible] and have, you know. [inaudible] >> i would say that with --

within the need to understand is how capitalism functions as a system. and the extent to which the state as we now have it is, in fact, a state. it is very poor in the weight is structured in every policy that is given to it as a reform, those reforms are structured in ways so as to reproduce capitalist social relations. so as not just a matter of democratizing and speaking of the need to turn banks and to public utilities, the need to have democratic economic planning, the need to allow for democracy the workplace. we need a fundamentally restructure state for this to happen. well, at least. more than that certainly. when i was a kid capitalism did not exist. the concern was actually mixed economy. what is remarkable is that after the defeat of the left and the unions back in 1980, mainstream

economists started using the word capitalist again. you know, you can pick up the new york times today and see an article in the business section called choosing your capitalist. there was one of those typical, business and social science. one of those typical varieties of capitalism's. they have a nicer capitalism in the street. we have a more rampant cowboy capitalist. and a very myopic kind of discussion because it failed to see the extent to which european capitalism has become so americanized. you know, the european union is more open, if anything, to much of what we have been discussing in terms of free capital flows and deregulation than any other. so it has been in myopic discussion. but i think everyone now does recognize this is the capitol system. and hopefully people will get

beyond looking for a better variety of capitalism and use the kind of democratizing language your speaking of to try to get to somewhere else. get to a better society that is not structured in terms of capitalist social relations and the drive to capital. >> do things. [inaudible] agreed to help and to privatize

so that they stand aside. create our own. [indiscernible] >> yes. i think a central theme of the book is, to some extent, the type of reforms. for us to understand. there were bigger ones involved. much bigger conflicts. those that were oriented to producing the kind of mortgage and those that we now have in the health system. and, you know, once you opted for that you when it for your members and hopefully that will

provide an example for other employers to give to their workers as well rather than when the public of system, rather than a deacon modified arena of society in that crucial area. he then established a capitalist corporation with workers who are dependent who have an enormous interest in reproducing that arena of accumulation. and it becomes very difficult once you have -- when you have the chance to secure a public health system and you don't take it, you then face an enormously strong element of capital which limits your ability to then get it and, as we show in the book, 14 of the 16 leading multinational corporations in the world, and the health sector are american. that's hardly surprising given the arena and given that the

united states spends more on health than any other country in the world as a portion of gdp precisely because of this privatized welfare state which is what is. >> one of the things we should also -- i mean, the other side of that is, when the private welfare state in the u.s. began to fall apart, when it became clear that gm, ford, chrysler cannot polling started having some many retirees relative to those working at it just is hard to work within that confinement. the question was whether labour would mobilize to say that the private welfare system is falling apart. the only solution is therefore to really have the kind of health care system that exists elsewhere. the labor union was not strong enough to do it, and i think a lot of cases man mistake of not making that the primary issue. the result was that companies like gm got none of it not by

saying once make it into a public system but let's take it away from the workers, and that's how will save money. and that's what happened. >> the occupy wall street movement. an hon. >> the book ends with a quotation from the cut a square. a young woman holding a banner. hand-painted cardboard sign that says the trouble with the american dream is you need to be asleep to believe in it. wakeup. and there is no question that the audacity of the occupation is no doubt inspired by what is going on in aged and madrid to make sentra.

remarkable. and well, someone from the labor movement. the occupation of public squares , the occupation of some welfare offices, the occupation of some plants, except for a. that said, yes, we are critical in the sense that there is not a version, not only among young people today still organization. there is any cause i anarchist side testify can use the word. not only in the united states, canada and europe as well. not surprising, perhaps, given, you know, the dissolution with the old socialist party, the bureaucracy, except for, but insofar as people don't organize , go beyond one protest after another to build a new type of organization that is needed to take on the capital

state to know we will be spending the rest of eternity in one protest after another. in a very creative and inspiring , but one has to eventually get beyond that. so i think that is our reaction. the other reaction we would have, and we think wall street, the occupy wall street was somewhat better in this respect. there has been a tendency in the anti globalization movement since seattle, it's important, to identify the problem has located at the level of the imf, at the level of these g-7 meetings orgy 20 meetings of finance ministers, central bankers, and leaders. and that is where the protesters. and in the book we point out that right after seattle in april 2000, the next big was in washington, the imf meeting. the protesters walked silently past 1500 pennsylvania avenue where the treasury building is located to protest at the imf.

and that kind of misses were the real power lies. there is nothing the imf does that the treasury does not allowed to do. treasury is a far more powerful agency in the management of global capital than the imf. and so i think you also need to get our eyes clear on where real power lies than perhaps has been true in the protest movement against globalization in the last 10-15 years. >> i think this is an appropriate place to wrap it up. i think you will be available to sign books and further conversation. so thank you for a stimulating night. >> thank you so much. [applause] >> is there a nonfiction author

a book he would like to see feature on book tv? send us an e-mail and book tv and c-span.org or tweet us. >> the author of how to be black . howdy be black? >> it helps so much to be born black. i think that's the most reliable way of actually being black. the book does not convert you. it's not an advanced genetic modification program. it is more of a mental intellectual exercise in identity, storytelling, and clarity. >> one example of being black. >> well, the story of the book is mostly a memoir. i grew up in washington d.c. during the crack wars, the crackhead mayor, columbia heights before it got a metro station and the target. in that journey from very political black power family and the legacy of my ancestors through the crack wars, that is

the backbone of the book. and there are lessons learned along the way, have to be the black friend, have to speak for all black people which are often asked to represent everybody we sort of kind of maybe look like. have to be the next black president which is very applicable during this particular season. this book contains those lessons plus interviews with some black experts identified, people have been black their entire lives as well who really know what they're talking about. >> when you graduated from college and their mother said, we get it, is that an example of being black? >> that was an example of being both proud and brought the generous for what we meant. when she said that i think she was talking bofa about our efforts as a very tiny family to me and her and my older sister and the people that came before us and the states that was said to allow someone who is a descendant of a great-grandfather born into slavery to graduate from places like harvard university

commander, a come satire. mocking the very government and society have answered my ancestors. >> you mentioned your work if the union. what is your day job now? >> i don't have a day job. i'm a founder. l.f. the onion to start a company called cultivated with. we do projects that combine humor and technology to tell better stories to make the world less horrible. so day job night job command between sleep job. it's all i think about right now. i want to be one of those makers, not one of the stickers. >> how has having a black president affected your work? >> well, it gives me one other job that is excessive amount, which is great. you can add that to a list of the ag and athletes and sassy black woman, also president. that's pretty cool. expanded the range for one particular job. ..

this is booktv on c-span 2. >> pulitzer prize-winning, william kennedy describes albany and "o albany!: improbable city of political wizards, fearless ethnics, spectacular aristrocrats, splendid nobodies, and underrated scoundrels."

book tv spoke with mr. kennedy during a recent visit to albany with the help of our partner, time warner cable. >> albany honey bad rap for a very long time because of the politics are one thing, but even way back, way back in the building of the capital in 1870. stanford right, the great architect is working on the capital, hh richardson, a lot of other major architects. this would prove to be the most extensive building on the american continent. $25 million declared finished and 97 by teddy roosevelt. stanford white came here somewhere around 1872 when he

said of other terrible things have got to spend another night in albany. he said about the one horse towns, this is the absolute worst and it was ennui and the devil. i have to spend another night in albany. that changed when the capital will. suddenly albany became a tourist attraction. kind of an impressionistic city of the history cover the whole ethnic history of the city and every geographic neighborhood and a lot more. and it sold extremely well all over the country. that was an unusual development and has been selling understand.

it's a phenomenon that i don't quite understand. but what i discover was what a fantastic time this is. i had less albany and really never wanted to come back. you know, i've come back for the family, but the circumstances brought me back i got thrust into the situation. i started to see what an epic history of city has. it's the second oldest chartered city in the country, in the 17th century. and it's been -- it's got a history as long before the revolution massive has had. there is a centro meeting place

for others revolutionaries. washington was in town all the time. philip schuyler, generals of the revolution living in albany, benjamin frank lindh and so on and so on and in the history of those years. early in the 19th century to became sherman is that the erie canal, the way west. we were at the end of the river. henry hudson came up the river in 1607 and couldn't go any further than this rocky bottom shallows. it was very shocked encourage her out to be all but name eventually.

i'll bring a site called to in its formation and spirit all the european immigration. the dutch first amendment english and then the germans and then the irish. they came in the numbers, into new york, philadelphia, boston and so on and albany. albany had so many irish but they couldn't handle it and they closed our borders and would not let any more people come into the city. eventually the irish became dominant in the 19th century and numbers. in 1875 cents, i think it showed that one in six albanians were

born in ireland. posted to politics, albany was always a political city, even in a dutch colonization, it was a rebellious city. and the time of the english, lakeway three had the revolution, plotters, schemers from the drafters the constitution gathering in albany, planning the union. and so it went through the years. one of the great politicians of all time in this state in this country was the mayor of albany. he had uninterrupted success from the time he was elected in 1942 until he died in the hospital of emphysema in 1983.

11 terms uninterrupted. that's the longest running mayor of any city in the united state. he was very proud of that achievement. he was part of this fantastic political machine, which took power away from the republicans in 1921. for o'connell brothers with a couple of cornyn brothers. they founded. they took the city back from the republicans in 1899. in 1921, they never let go.

still in power. the secession has been on to the deaths of the two people who were the key perpetuators of permission. dan donald died and six years later. tommy whalen who was chosen not successor at corning. they succeeded tommy whalen who died, who served for 10 years and then quit and he was succeeded in a primary and that was unheard of because you never contravene the choices of the political boss. he was a knob salute major power who did not share his power.

he ran a very tight ship and he was the most incredible politician. james macgregor burns said that the historian said she didn't know what we really should do this political machine as it exists right now into the smithsonian and dictation so we know what advice machine is all about. so after tommy whalen came into power, he changed everything. he open up the city, was no longer the boss and jerry jennings is in the same. they run an open city and it's not at all the kind of tammany hall politics.

it is notable target constantly through the whole 20th century. through the 80s. targets the reformers, especially republican performers at the governors got into power. thomas dewey tried to make his way to the white house on the backs of the albany politicians and he failed. nelson rockefeller investigated the political machine and he failed. the machine went on and on and on. who knows how many elections they stole in the draft was extraordinary. but it was the consolidation of power and the ethnic roots that have been coming into this country. they were all part of this

mosaic that came to be this political machine. but by and large it was run during these two guys in a connecticut yankee. it is the history of the city and the sub title, fearless as next and political wizard, underrated scoundrels. we still have a lot of those. but it's a different time now. i mean, it's no longer just albany. albany is about five or six townsel put together. it's story, schenectady, colony in saratoga. saratoga is only half an hour away. these are great places to live

and to see. there's a lot to see you next time. it's also the beautiful town. it's a really beautiful town and a lot of people know it now. it doesn't have the reputation anymore i had. >> according to author mike lofgren, "the party is over." how the republicans are crazy, democrats became useless and the middle class that shafted. mr. lofgren, how did the republicans go crazy? >> well, they go crazy when they became an apocalyptic home that lives in its own bubble. we have seen not in the last election. they simply could not believe the public polls, what they were

saying that obama was probably going to win and most democratic senate candidates are going to win. they were shellshocked in their own works. if they cannot accept empirical reality, they're going to be in big trouble and the succeeding elections. speenine democrats became useless? did not well, they became useless in the party of me too, but less after three successive losses in presidential elections in the 80s. they kind of retooled and became more corporate friendly. many people think i happen to be one of them, for all that obama has excoriated as this kind of kenyan observer, who is a muslim and socialist that he is pretty much fulfilled george bush's

third term in national security matters. >> finally, how does the middle class figure into your thesis? >> the middle-class figures then and they're the ones who got shafted because there was a bipartisan move. clinton was president. the republicans mainly were running congress when we had a like nafta, china's most favorite nation status, the jvc, the world trade organization. all these trade deals people claim were going to bring jobs to the united states and in every case, the jobs left.